Go to page

EOS 1D MK II

Northlight has uncovered a USPTO patent that showcases various optical formulas for apodization lenses. It appears one of the embodiments fits the recently announced Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L DS USM.Other embodiments in this patent include:

Canon RF 35mm f/1.4
Canon RF 28mm f/2.8

We don’t doubt that an L 35mm lens is coming sooner or later for the RF mount.

EOS RP

If by pancake you mean you'd accept a 2.8, I can't quite go there. I don't want a fixed lens that is strictly less capable than the "trinity" zooms: same aperture but no zoom, say. I want a fixed lens that actually does something the zooms don't. I want at least 1 extra stop out of it, if not a bit more.

I don't care if it is as short as a pancake, or significantly longer. But I also want it to be smaller than the 35/1.8, which is like double the length I'd want of a lens that was always on the camera in my backpack even when I didn't know I was going to take photos. I'd happily take a non-IS, non-macro 35/2, say. Also would immediately buy a non-IS 50/1.8 or 50/1.4.

24mm TS-e ii is life!

28/2 would be the dream. Some compact primes would be awesome for both EF and RF. Canon is really bad a catering to the 1.8 crowd, when I moved to Canon from Nikon I was really disappointed at the range of 1.8 primes. Nikons 1.8's are great! Especially the 20 and 28.

EOS 80D

I second that! It doesn't have to do tricks either; no macro necessary, or apodisation. Just small and sharp. Leica has been making tiny, fast 28s and such for their 'mirror-less' M series for decades!

EOS T7i

The EOS RP was made for an inexpensive pancake lens to go with that tiny frame. Canon's lens rollout is just fascinatingly amusing. Such powerful glass to serve as a statement of intent. Will the next and true EOS R please stand up!

EOS 5D SR

If by pancake you mean you'd accept a 2.8, I can't quite go there. I don't want a fixed lens that is strictly less capable than the "trinity" zooms: same aperture but no zoom, say. I want a fixed lens that actually does something the zooms don't. I want at least 1 extra stop out of it, if not a bit more.

I don't care if it is as short as a pancake, or significantly longer. But I also want it to be smaller than the 35/1.8, which is like double the length I'd want of a lens that was always on the camera in my backpack even when I didn't know I was going to take photos. I'd happily take a non-IS, non-macro 35/2, say. Also would immediately buy a non-IS 50/1.8 or 50/1.4.

EOS 6D MK II

Canon will release whatever glass can reel EF-S and/or EF folks into the new R system. They are going to surprise and sweet talk folks that are after exotic glass, quality glass, small formfactor glass and the glass that does not exist outside of the Canon’s realm.

EOS RP

I don't think they waited 20 years to make pancakes because of some overarching strategy, but simply because people weren't talking about them. I think they're still a topic of interest, which makes it likely they'll make them.

However: I don't need a real pancake. The 40/2.8 for the EF isn't as deep as the R's grip. With the grip setting the camera's minimum thickness, any lens thinner than that brings nothing to me. By all means make a portable lens or two as deep as the grip, Canon!

Meanwhile, the pancake 2.8 lenses are useless if you have trinity zooms with you. I'd much prefer to have a small prime that actually still brings something to the table even if you have trinity zooms, whether it's a 35/1.4, 35/2, 50/1.4, or 50/1.8.

EOS 7D MK II

I second that! It doesn't have to do tricks either; no macro necessary, or apodisation. Just small and sharp. Leica has been making tiny, fast 28s and such for their 'mirror-less' M series for decades!

I don't think these Leica M comparisons are valid at all. They will make an autofocusing 28mm f/2 Summicron-SL for the L-system, and just look at the size of that one (before we even get to the price)
The lowest one can expect should be somewhat similar to the Sony FE 28mm f2 (has to be bigger with the control ring, etc.) but Canon is probably not interested in making one like that. If size was their main priority over rigidity and optical quality, they would have chosen a smaller mount and an even shorter flange distance.
With all that said, there will be at least one pancake lens, it just might not be what people expect (you probably cannot make a 28mm as small as let's say a 40mm).

As much as I like my Leica 35/1.4ASPH on the R, I agree we can't expect an AF lens that small and I'm sure Canon won't make MF lenses. I guess it's academic though: I can just use Leica M lenses now; that suits my needs fine.

The lowest one can expect should be somewhat similar to the Sony FE 28mm f2 (has to be bigger with the control ring, etc.) but Canon is probably not interested in making one like that. If size was their main priority over rigidity and optical quality, they would have chosen a smaller mount and an even shorter flange distance.
With all that said, there will be at least one pancake lens, it just might not be what people expect (you probably cannot make a 28mm as small as let's say a 40mm).

My happy lens would be the size of the EF 35/2 (43mm thick) or 50/1.8 (39mm), or just a bit shorter. The right-hand grip already stands out 35mm or so, so a lens up to 35mm makes the camera with lens mounted no thicker/deeper than it is already. This is achievable for the R mount.

The Canon M system is doing that job. However, people who use the big Canon bodies use them for more than one thing. I'm happy to use monster lenses for most work. Some work needs smaller lenses though, and I'd like to have my R with me everywhere just like I had my EOS M with me everywhere (and Contax G2, and Yashica T5 before that).

Given that the body height and width is bigger than the mount diameter, no, the mount diameter doesn't constrain portability. And a shorter flange distance would make the camera smaller but lens bigger.

The REAL criteria is: is the lens longer (deeper) than the handgrip? If not, then the lens isn't what's determining the total dimensions of the camera. Whether it's a pancake lens, or 35mm thick, the camera thickness with lens mounted is the same.

Well first, the EF 24mm f/2.8 pancake IS as small as the EF 40mm f/2.8, so the lens clearly can be made that small. Secondly, that 24mm is a retro-focus design and a recomputation for a rangefinder/mirrorless would be even smaller. A 28mm would be in between the size of these two lenses but closer to the 24mm.

But thirdly and most importantly, if you have the f/2.8 zooms with you then a pancake 2.8 is useless. It brings nothing to the table. In contrast, a modestly-sized 35/2 or 50/1.8 brings an extra stop or more.

EOS 7D MK II

Well first, the EF 24mm f/2.8 pancake IS as small as the EF 40mm f/2.8, so the lens clearly can be made that small. Secondly, that 24mm is a retro-focus design and a recomputation for a rangefinder/mirrorless would be even smaller. A 28mm would be in between the size of these two lenses but closer to the 24mm.

But thirdly and most importantly, if you have the f/2.8 zooms with you then a pancake 2.8 is useless. It brings nothing to the table. In contrast, a modestly-sized 35/2 or 50/1.8 brings an extra stop or more.

That pancake is not a FF lens, so it is an invalid comparison as well (or you are mixing it with a different lens which is much bigger), one does not simply enlarge the image circle (insert meme here). And the 35mm lens is already done, there won't be another smaller one, a 50/1.8 IS is probably coming, but it won't be any smaller or lighter. So a tiny lens faster than f/2.8, is an unrealistic expectation (as usual)

I understand that you've left M system, but why do you expect Canon to kill it by releasing similar lenses for the RF-mount? (if they could in the first place)
That's the point, it's not going away any time soon, they are filling in different needs and wallet thickness.

A better comparison might be Canon's own EF 28 f/2.8 IS. Seems like you could trade the mirror clearance that it has to accommodate for another stop in speed—and not have to make it too much bigger, if at all. The new RF 35mm isn't too awfully big (I don't think). A 28 vision of the same—without macro—ought to be easy enough to do.

EOS 7D MK II

A better comparison might be Canon's own EF 28 f/2.8 IS. Seems like you could trade the mirror clearance that it has to accommodate for another stop in speed—and not have to make it too much bigger, if at all. The new RF 35mm isn't too awfully big (I don't think). A 28 vision of the same—without macro—ought to be easy enough to do.

As I wrote, they could probably make a lens that is somewhat bigger than a Sony 28/2 to incorporate a control ring as well, but it wouldn't be as cheap as the Sony and that's not their priority anyway, when there are so many zooms and high-end primes are still to come.
Yes, it seems a little odd, considering the recent release of the EOS RP, but at this stage, they probably expect it to be used with the smaller and cheaper adapted EF glass.

Its small size is what it brings! I agree 2.8 isn't great, but a tiny lens is essential if you're doing street photography and don't want to draw attention to yourself. A tiny lens really doesn't look as 'threatening' or invasive to people as a 24-70 f2.8 does.

EOS RP

Its small size is what it brings! I agree 2.8 isn't great, but a tiny lens is essential if you're doing street photography and don't want to draw attention to yourself. A tiny lens really doesn't look as 'threatening' or invasive to people as a 24-70 f2.8 does.

EOS RP

That pancake is not a FF lens, so it is an invalid comparison as well (or you are mixing it with a different lens which is much bigger), one does not simply enlarge the image circle (insert meme here). And the 35mm lens is already done, there won't be another smaller one, a 50/1.8 IS is probably coming, but it won't be any smaller or lighter. So a tiny lens faster than f/2.8, is an unrealistic expectation (as usual)

I understand that you've left M system, but why do you expect Canon to kill it by releasing similar lenses for the RF-mount? (if they could in the first place)
That's the point, it's not going away any time soon, they are filling in different needs and wallet thickness.

Thanks, I didn't realize the 24mm was EF-S, my bad! I don't follow the equipment market generally, just now a bit since getting the R. Forget that lens then, and look at an older Leica 35/2. That amount of glass suffices for a compact 35/2, by definition! Granted you can also make bigger ones but I'm asking for a <=35mm long one. I don't think a portable lens for the R would kill the M series as the M series is still literally 1/2 or 1/3 the volume of the R.

EOS 7D MK II

Thanks, I didn't realize the 24mm was EF-S, my bad! I don't follow the equipment market generally, just now a bit since getting the R. Forget that lens then, and look at an older Leica 35/2. That amount of glass suffices for a compact 35/2, by definition! Granted you can also make bigger ones but I'm asking for a <=35mm long one. I don't think a portable lens for the R would kill the M series as the M series is still literally 1/2 or 1/3 the volume of the R.

I've already said that it has no electronics at all, all mechanical. Not just the focusing, but the aperture as well (in Canon's case, it has to jump quickly between wide-open and stepped down with every frame within a burst) and to make that with tolerances needed for good optical quality, it has to cost a lot of money, even used. It would be way more brand new, but they are considering bringing back some more old ones, so we may see how much it can really cost in this day and age.
I guess Yongnuo may do something if the mount gets reverse engineered, all plastic so light and very cheap, but it's safe to say that it's not going to be anywhere as good optically as any Canon RF lens. Until then, it is mostly MF only or wait for Canon's surprise (but let's be honest, in a lot of cases, surprises aren't what we really want).